Making everyone happy is impossible. Pissing them off is a piece of cake. I like cake.

Saturday, March 28, 2009

Piss off

Can someone tell me why some cunt from the TPA has asked me to join a group on Facebook protesting about the fact that some place somewhere is asking motorcyclists to pay for parking?

Fuck them: car owners have to pay for parking—why should motorcyclists not do the same? I'm sorry, but can anyone tell me why motorcyclists should not pay for parking—is it the case that motorcycles magically disappear, not taking up any space, when they are parked?

So, no, I absolutely believe that motorcyclists should pay for parking; especially cunting moped-riders: they should be made to pay through the nose in return for all of the fucking trouble they cause on the roads.

The only road-users that I loathe more than fucking overtake-and-bugger-whether-the-opposite-lane-is-clear, overtaking-on-the-inside-is-just-dandy motorcyclists are fucking traffic-lights-don't-apply-to-me, weaving-between-cars-in-a-dangerous-manner-is-fine pedal-cyclists.

I keep seeing and hearing government-sponsored adverts about how "two motorcyclists a week are killed or seriously injured": anyone who drives a car could tell you why—because the stupid cunts do not follow the rules of the road.

Pretty much all of them are cocks and deserve all that they get. The only thing that worries me is that car owners are almost always blamed and that they feel in some way guilty for causing accidents.

I'm thinking of attaching scythes to my wheels in order to kill more of the two-wheeled cunts...

66 comments:

Spoken like a gentleman Sir!( Every time I spend 10 minutes trying to get round some prick on a moped doing 20, and then I do and I get caught at the lights, and the fucker slips right back in front of Me then I get out and.....)

Bikers have always been the people governments test their authoritarianism on first, because middle class tossers like yourself don't think they matter.

The helmet laws were introduced to remove the option of choice, even thoughblog.ttxgp.comblog.ttxgp.com 90% chose to wear one. Daylight lights are being forced on them through the EU, even though most chose to use them anyway.Now, their parking bays, which are normally the size of one or two car parking spaces are being charged at a higher rate than the equivalent car rate - giving the council involved a hefty rise in income - even though the whole point of using a bike was to help reduce congestion!Bikes are, in practice, almost a CO free machine with figures from engines running at city speeds so small they are almost unmeasurable. Try that with a car. They don't cause traffic - hence the reason they are able to get around the oafs who need four seats to carry their single big arse around the place in a car.

They are also a hell of a lot more fun, faster and much cheaper than cars.

I know you have already been proved to just be a big mouth with very little substance - which is why your visitor numbers are going down - however, if you really were one to stand by principles you would support this protest. If they succeed in getting it in place, It won't be long before they will be able to use the increased income to justify raising car parking prices to the same proportion!

I was thinking of commentating on your scythes comment - but I'm sure someone will probably enforce a bullet to the back of your head if you ever tried it.

Hmmm. Not a very intelligent or thoughtful post Chris.Bikers and their mounts have as much right as you to use the road and "I'm thinking of attaching scythes to my wheels in order to kill more of the two-wheeled cunts..." - even in jest - is not very libertarian, is it?

DK, whatever merits your arguments about fairness or whatever, they haven't got a chance of any credibility, because your actual posting came across as nothing but a nasty little weenie in his big shiny motor-car going parp parp parp.

They reached the carriage-drive of Toad Hall to find a shiny new motor-car of great size, painted a bright red (Toad's favorite color), standing in front of the house. As they neared the door it was flung open and Mr. Toad, arrayed in goggles, cap, gaiters, and an enormous overcoat, came swaggering down the steps drawing on his gauntleted gloves.

All laws are introduced the remove the "option of the choice", which is why some people (like me) want fewer laws. Out of interest, do you approve of this particular law and, if so, can you tell me why car drivers shouldn't be forced to wear crash helmets too?

It would be interesting to replace the rules of the road with the various competing rules of private roads. Possibly this would remove the various irrational hatreds people develop for other kinds of road users, which always come down to "it's not fair, they ought to be punished and restricted as much as I am".

It's no good having a go at people for being dangerous, or for ignoring rules. Neither of those acts, as such, do any actual harm, particularly if the danger is to themselves or the rules are dumb. This seems to be the one issue on which you've come over all authoritarian, randomly.

Middle class little shits like you make me despair. Is that the best the LPUK can do ?

"Pretty much all of them are cocks and deserve what they get"No mate, you car driving twats are fucking blind and retarded.

Or are you judging all bikers on the experience of those crazed London despatch riders ? Because let me tell you, Mr fucking metropolitan IT nerd gayboy, there is a whole world outside that shithole called London.

Fuck you. I had to go to an engagement party tonight full of fucking smug Audi TT driving middle class 'IT professionals' like your kind tonight and I how I got through it without punching someone right between the eyes I don't know.

If you ever fuck with me in traffic then pray you make a good job of it, because if you don't and I can still stand up afterwards I'll drag you out of your stupid tin box and wring your scrawny fucking neck in the street.

But DK's post does remind me of some "Libertarian" blogs where people rant about Freedom from Government interference and nannyism, but then say, "Oh yes. Except smokers. I like the Ban - it stops me smelling of tobacco and thus having to wash every day like a normal person. Fuck smokers."

The other poster who said that "Divide and rule" is the order of the day with this shower of shit are right. We mustn't et them get away with it (whatever you think of bikers themselves - the greasy bastards).

Free parking for bikes goes back as long as I can remember - certainly in the thirty odd years I've been riding, I've only had to pay for parking my bike on the odd occasion (usually privately owned facilities such as NCP).

You've hit the wrong target here. As a council tax payer, a motorcyclist is paying for council services - and that should include parking facilities. Why are cars exempt? Are drivers not council tax payers, too?

Kingswood council was recently forced to provide free parking for all vehicles in its erstwhile pay and display parking areas (with one exception and I think that one is privately owned and managed and there is no free motorcycle bay). That is what you should be campaigning for.

On the subject of your general ire; any motorcyclist or scooter rider who overtakes on the nearside is asking for it, frankly. It is stupid and suicidal and it certainly is not what they are taught during basic training.

Filtering, on the other hand is perfectly legitimate.

As for "most motorcyclists..." Shame on you. Generalisms do not make valid arguments, and you know that. What you see and remember are those who ride badly. The good ones go unnoticed and unremarked. There are plenty of bad drivers out there, too - or had you not noticed? I tend to notice every time one of them tries to send me to my maker...

When I was a lad growing up -- and a rider -- MCN was a doughty fighter for bikers. Many moons ago I wrote to MCN, pointing out that there was now a political party that was concerned about both enforced helmet use and the various legislation (current and proposed) around lights, tagging of number plates etc.

I didn't even get a reply, much less anything in print.

A reminder that this is DK's personal blog, and doesn't reflect the views of LPUK. Just as some of my personal comments don't. The party's position is clear, however, and it's a shame that the likes of MCN no longer seem interested in a biker's right to choose; other than the choice of which new model will part you from your cash.

The only thing that worries me is that car owners are almost always blamed and that they feel in some way guilty for causing accidents.

This is because the vast majority of motorcycle accidents occur at road junctions where the car is emerging into the rider's path. While defensive riding on the part of the rider will improve the likelihood of avoidance, the driver who emerges without properly ascertaining that the road is clear is, most definitely at fault.

I find the local council ads irritating as they are merely stating the obvious - but, the message is accurate.

Filthy Smoker - the helmet law; I am opposed even though I would always wear one for comfort. A bumble bee in the eye tends to affect one's concentration somewhat.

Ha! Excellent! Poking motorcyclists with a stick is always a joy (although I was pretty certain that Longrider would address the issue without having hysterics).

"Shame on you. Generalisms do not make valid arguments, and you know that. What you see and remember are those who ride badly. The good ones go unnoticed and unremarked. There are plenty of bad drivers out there, too - or had you not noticed?"

I find that people riding what I call "professional" bikes are pretty good: fucking moped-rider, in particular, are a fucking menace. (Obviously, I am applying this to London in particular.)

"I had to go to an engagement party tonight full of fucking smug Audi TT driving middle class 'IT professionals' like your kind tonight and I how I got through it without punching someone right between the eyes I don't know."

Fucking hellski: I have a whole post stored up for the drivers of fucking Audis, Mercedes and BMWs.

I was a a party a few months ago with a guy who did marketing for BMW, and was pointing out that BMW drivers are all wankers: he replied that he knew it, but that the probable reason for this was that BMWs were so safe, powerful and reliable that the drivers tended to forget that not everyone had such a good car and thus thought that they could pull off stunts and get away with it. The man was a marketing genius.

The point really is that motorcyclists are very vulnerable and doing things like sitting in a car's blind spot and then trying to insert yourself in between a still-moving car and a set of railings at traffic lights in order to be at the front of the queue is a fucking stupid thing to do.

I could catalogue all of the bloody stupid things that I have seen motorcyclists do in the last couple of months, but I canot be bothered. My point is, if you do not want to be killed, don't drive like a twat because, one day, someone less safe than me will kill you.

They won't do it deliberately. But, especially in London, a car driver is having to deal with some very weird road layouts, and then check and anticipate frequent speed-cameras (people slow down for these even if they weren't breaking the speed limit anyway) and traffic lights, check the car in front, and the car behind, and for motorcyclists and cyclists on the inside and the outside (even on single-carriage roads).

As for the libertarian aspect, as a general rule, the rules of the road are there to stop people being killed. And I don't mean speed limits, or fucking helmets: I mean things like under-taking, etc.

I'll say it again: motorcyclists -- you are vulnerable. If you don't want to die, still to the rules.

"DK, whatever merits your arguments about fairness or whatever, they haven't got a chance of any credibility, because your actual posting came across as nothing but a nasty little weenie in his big shiny motor-car going parp parp parp."

And why do you think I should care? I write this blog for my catharsis, not so that everyone can sit there nodding their heads in agreement like the fucking Churchill dog.

If you want to know, what makes me so angry at motorcyclists is that I do not want to kill anyone whilst I am driving -- but some motorcyclists seem determined to try to force me to do so. And that is why they fucking piss me off, OK?

"So, "some cunt at the Taxpayers Alliance", emphasis on the "some cunt" here, is the same Mark Wallace you apparently invited to post on the Devil's Kitchen. Forgotten his name?"

Nah, he'll get over it. Although I think it was actually Tim Aker. Now, Ian, shall I start commenting on your friends?

DK - if you are checking your mirrors as you should be, then you should know what is in your blind spot at any given time. Accident avoidance is the responsibility of all road users no matter who is primarily at fault.

One of the worst examples I notice of the failure of drivers (and truckers seem to be particularly prone to this) is on the motorway where they fail to see my rather noticeable Renault Scenic (it's big enough, for chrissakes) approaching them in the lane next to them and just as I am about to pass, on goes the indicator and they start to swing out straight into my road space. Yet, yet, if they were checking their mirrors as they should be...

While the basic rules of the road are no doubt well-evolved and sensible, it's still annoying that they're monolithic, that is, there's only one set of them per country, and that they aren't created as an attempt to attract people (customers) to roads, and therefore don't react to what the people on the spot actually want, only to the most vocal whinging, and to common sense (including myths). And I don't see the difference between the law against undertaking and the law against driving over a certain speed: both are theories about a certain behaviour being safer than another. One theory may be right and the other wrong, but they're the same category of thing, and neither relates to actual harm.

Yes, of course that's the case: however, things can be missed when one is concentrating on something else.

What one would normally do is to check the road behind and see what is likely to move into your blind spot.

However, a motorcyclist can (and they do) move from being out of sight to being in your blind spot, within the few seconds that you are concentrating on the stuff, e.g. traffic lights and pulling to a stop, in front of you.

Felix,

Under-taking is dangerous because it is unexpected; it also makes it very difficult to shift into lanes so that you can come off, for instance, a motorway.

DK - yes, of course they can be missed. I do it as well for the reasons you cite. However, in the event of an accident, it's still negligence.

On the point of undertaking, if it was accepted as standard practice as is the case in other countries, it wouldn't be unexpected and would therefore not be dangerous - any more so than overtaking.

What is dangerous and very, very stupid is for small two wheelers (cycles and mopeds primarily) to filter on the left on the approach to a junction, something that they are encouraged to do by local councils who provide a lane specifically for the purpose. One wonders sometimes whether local authorities are trying to cull them given the stupidity of some of the cycle lanes I see.

that post was bad. the authorities hate bikers, biking is a nice Righteous "for-your-own-good" target. aren't there enough assaults on personal freedom without some eejit (you!), allegedly libertarian, railing against a group who aren't afraid to accept an increase in personal risk, who don't roll over at further demands for cash?? if you don't like bikers then you've only noticed the bad ones. they stand out from a background of overall competence, like your stupid, stupid post. - richard

Oh dear, the implication here is that motorcyclists should pay as much as car drivers. They don't cause traffic jams, don't take up as much room when parking either in car parks or at the side of the road and, quite simply, roads don't get as much wear and tear from them. So no, you're wrong.

A special hate for pedal cyclists, I see. Perhaps bear in mind that a cyclist's attitude has already been formed by being put in danger of dying by car drivers speaking into mobile phones, car drivers overtaking on bends because they're too impatient to wait a few seconds or by car drivers trying to block them at traffic lights because it pisses them off that someone else might get to the head of the queue.

The B660 is a biker magnet. But when you see them they are going well over the limit. I'm doing 60 or even only 50 because of the bends and one just zooms past at 80 or 90. One bastard was on my side of the road as I was entering a bend as the stupid fucker was overtaking. I thought he was going to ram me, but he recovered just in time. A brown trouser moment indeed.

Moped riders.....yep. Hate them. 30 mph on a 60 mph road and often no way to overtake them safely.

So? And drivers of other vehicles don't? Also bear in mind, that breaking a speed limit is not the same thing as riding or driving too fast for the prevailing conditions. Blanket speed limits merely cater for the lowest common denominator, their relationship to a safe speed will depend on the conditions at the time, the ability and alertness of the driver and condition of the vehicle. The questions is, are these riders travelling too fast for the conditions, not whether they are exceeding an arbitrary posted limit - every driver and rider exceeds these at some point.

I recall my advanced training when travelling at 50 - 60 being exhorted by a class 1 police rider to get a move on.

Also, please try not to assume that the few you see riding badly applies to all of us.

I have met you, and based on that meeting I would indeed say that you are not a cunt. But, someone whose only frame of reference was posts on this blog (particularly posts like this one) might be considerably more likely to come to the opposite conclusion. Luckily for you you're not bothered by this.

The B660 has quite a lot of bends on it and when people in cars speed, as indeed they do, they usually end up in a ditch (Porche 3 weeks ago). As do some of the bloody huge lorries that use it too. However, as I said it is a biker magnet. You only remember the blurred bike and high pitched whine as a very, very fast bike goes by. You get plenty of sensible ones too. But just as good news doesn't sell papers, only the badduns get talked about, like the one I thought was going to come through my windscreen. I have a friend who is a biker. 180 mph along a parkway in Peterborough. He also sets off the metal detector at airports having been screwed back together a few years ago. Has all the expensive protective gear. But still goes a tad too fast.

"Moped riders.....yep. Hate them. 30 mph on a 60 mph road and often no way to overtake them safely."

well, the government restricted 50cc bikes (mopeds) to 30mph, so blame them for taking a a 45mph bike and making it into a 30mph one, toiling along with no performance. it's not the 16yr old's fault if he has a slow bike. it IS your fault if you are the type of driver who makes no allowances for vehicles of much less performance than your own. - richard

Chalecedon, my point was "appropriate speed" (for the conditions). A Porche may well end up in a ditch, a bike at the same speed may not. You reiterate my earlier point, though - it is the bad ones that get noticed. No one notices a competent rider making quiet efficient progress.

Your friend is on case in point - 180mph on public rods is indefensible as there are too many hazards to make it a safe speed (I know that road).

I've been riding for 30 odd years and am still in one piece and no injuries with only one minor accident when I was 19 (a car emerging from a side junction, surprise, surprise). I learned from that and have avoided all similar attempts on my life. Somewhere between the two are the vast majority.

"What's Mark "some cunt" Wallace done to cause such fury? I bet he's thrilled to have friends like these."

Believe me, you get used to it with the Devil! Water off a duck's back...

The thing is on this issue, that the TPA rightly exists to fight for lower taxes, oppose tax rises and campaign against new taxes. The concept of charging per-use might be fine and dandy in concept but it is never used by councils to replace taxation, only to add to it in a double whammy.

This isn't some charge to cover the costs of bike parking - in fact of the £2.3 million raised in the last six months only £23,000 has actually gone on improvements to parking for bikes. It's a stealth tax, a revenue raiser.

You're right, DK, that the parking charges and fines are outrageously high. However, that's an argument for reducing them, not simply hiking the charges of others to make you feel less hard done by.

If Westminster introduced a 20p charge for using zebra crossings it would be a total bloody outrage, but by your logic it would be fair game...

Fact is, as any insurance company will tell you, that car drivers get the blame most of the time simply because 70% of accidents involving motorcycles and cars are the fault of the car driver. I am not making excuses for the nutters weaving around all over the place, but that's just how it is. Seven m/cycles can park in the space taken up by the average car. The trouble is that if there is no advantage to riding a motorcycle and all those riders took to cars instead there would be a hell of a lot more cars, and less space on the roads, and even less room to park. Personally I think we are looking at this the wrong way round - neither cars nor motorcycles should have to pay for parking. They both already pay unjustifiable amounts of taxes. JD.NO TO LISBON MEANS NO TO LISBON!http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=38059363467&ref=mf

My daughter and I play a great game. I drive, she is the passenger. If we see an agressive law flouting cyclist riding hell for leather we pull over a good hundred yards up the road. Daughter waits, hand on handle and if the cycling psychopath looks like they are planning to whizz by on the inside she opens the door, slowly. Just a little, a crack as it were. It is almost always enough to cause the peddling maniac a moment of sheer panic, followed by slamming on of breaks and hitting of tarmac at high speed or evasive action into a near by hedge. It's fucking ace. Try it some time. It's not illegal and is always funny.Mummy x

Look you lot, it is not one class of motorist who are twats - it is certain people who are twats, regardless of their means of moving around.

Some cyclists are twats. Some motorcyclists are twats. Some bus drivers are twats. Some truckies are twats. Most BMW drivers are twats. Some taxi drivers are twats. Some pedestrians are twats - they can't walk down an empty street with yapping loudly on their phone and getting in the way of other pedestrians.

Instead of picking on a class of motorist, how about just picking on the twats and rubbing them out?

'The only thing that worries me is that car owners are almost always blamed and that they feel in some way guilty for causing accidents.'

As an ex-motorcyclist who was put into hospital for 16 weeks and off work for nine months due to a nineteen year old driving daddy's Range Rover who couldn't be bothered to negotiate a set of temporary traffic lights and u-turned in front of me, I am inclined to take issue with your statement...

However, as you also state, this is your place and your catharsis and who am I to take issue with that?

At the risk of embarrassing your good self, I would say that you have always (as far as I'm concerned) pretty much hit the nail on the head regarding the state of the nation and the malaise that afflicts this country.

With that in mind, I for one, would uphold your right to denigrate those road users whom you believe to be a sub-set of the human race.

As an aside:

I have to carry a doctors explanation to prevent any local militia from frying my arse when the metal detectors at an airport go bananas due to me being the bionic man.

I thank god for Pampas Ultras when faced with half a dozen police held sub-machine guns and a whole lot of shouting going on.

"Under-taking is dangerous because..." no, I don't care. The question of whether it's dangerous or not isn't interesting. I was saying that it's a rule against arbitrarily decreed unsafe behaviour, the same as the speed limits which you disapprove of, and any apparently good rule may in fact be a bad rule. If we're going to have these pissy rules intended to prevent damage people haven't caused yet, there should at least be a good mechanism for criticising the rules (a market). I hope the reason you dislike the speed limits is because they impinge on our freedom to take risks - as does any other legally enforced traffic regulation - but maybe you simply think we should have different speed limits. If you're just going to issue a decree about what you think should be a safety regulation and what you think shouldn't, well, everybody else does that too, which means you've only played some small part in one of many vast national debates about safety which will be ultimately meaningless anyway since it will be won by the most paternalistically outraged.

(I'm against all traffic regulations. I envisage a lot of tort law instead, with rules that come into play after damage is caused, not before. Or perhaps you'd get a penalty payment for breaking safety rules, within the terms of some private contract with the road owner, if you'd willingly sign up to such a scheme.)

OK, I understand about the speed of 50cc machines being capped. It is still annoying to be stuck behind one though, especially as they usually emit a lot of foul blue smoke. I only overtake them when it is safe for them and me to do so. They aren't that common these days.

One thing that does annoy owing to it's potential lethality is being sideswiped by a left hand drive foreign truck on the A14. There is virtually a neaside lane full of trucks. I have nearly been sideswped at least 3 times and I don't use the A14 a great deal!

The B660 is banned for trucks.You are going to get more and more left hand drive foreign trucks on the roads because they dont pay anything in the UK, although UK trucks pay in every country they are in. Ergo the international trucking industry of Britain has been wiped out.The foreigners dont pay their track costs. You (car driver or motorcyclist) pay for him.

Few things - why shouldn't motorcyclists pay to park if other drivers do? no real reason, parking charges are generally a way of trying to enforce behaviour, bikes are generally exempt because as mentioned above policy is to encourage not deter the switch to what they call powered two wheelers (PTW). Is that right? Who knows - modifying behaviour with law is not something that I like.

Now a word about all this scythes and bikes etc. Biking is primarily dangerous to bikers, we choose to do it, we like it, you may not choose to and you may not like it but that's your choice. DO NOT presume because we are travelling faster than you or in a way that you don't understand that we are endangering ourselves or you. As a general comment - If I scare you with my riding (which does happen - lots of drivers aren't paying any attention until my exhaust note wakes them up) then I apologise that's not my intention but unless you are a biker you probably don't understand why sometimes it's a much better idea to switch inside and accelerate through than to stay where you are. That's fine - I don't expect you to understand - but I'm going to discount your opinion unless you have taken some steps to consider bikers motivations - ascribing it to personality types i.e. we're all cunts - does not indicate sufficient intellectual effort as far as I'm concerned. Overall, I am not going to ride my bike in a way that is perfectly predictable to occassionally attentive drivers because doing so significantly increases my personal risk. The end result may be that you think I'm an idiot cunting biker - but there are two things to consider a) I don't actually give a shit what you think and b) I'm still alive not to care.

Why is the richest borough in the UK (Westminster City Council) the only borough in the UK to charge motorbikes and scooters to park in motorcycle bays?

You can fit about 20 bikes in 3 car spaces. Surely it's better for car drivers to lose 3 car spaces to bikes instead of having those 20 bike riders driving cars and taking up 20 car parking spaces.

To say that bikes should pay because cars have to is not really an argument. Why do cars have to pay to park? Should rich people really be entitled to park for longer just because they can afford to? Is that fair? NO!

"Should rich people really be entitled to park for longer just because they can afford to? Is that fair? NO!"Should rich people be able to go on holiday more often and buy more nice things just because they can afford to? Is that fair? NO!